160 Hanna Stettler people were looked upon as a danger to other people’s purity, since their impurity was considered contagious (cf. Lev 13,45-46; 15,25; 21,11). Jesus, however, heals impure people by touching them. Examples of this are the healing of the leper (Mark 1,41 parr.), the healing of a woman suffering from a blood discharge who touched him (Mark 5,25-34 parr.), the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, whom Jesus seized by her hand (Mark 5,41 parr.), and of the young man at Nain, whose bier Jesus “touched” (Luke 7,14). Jesus’ lack of concern in dealing with these impure people is certainly not the norm in his day (20). If Jesus can heal the impure by touching them, his holiness must be “transferable” (21). In the OT there are very few instances where holiness is consi- dered transferable. According to P, holiness can only be transferred to things, not to people (Exod 29,37; 30,26-29; Lev 6,11.20). Ezekiel takes up the older view (cf. 2 Sam 6,6-7), according to which the holiness of holy items in the temple can be transmitted to people (Ezek 42,14; 44,19; 46,20). Such transmission can have lethal consequences (Num 4,15) and must be avoided. Haggai and the Tannaites, finally, reduce the transmission of holiness to food (Hag 2,10-12) (22). In general, according to the Old Testament, it is the impure which contaminates the Holy. The contagious character of holiness is therefore not a general principle. Jesus does not say that holiness always transfers itself. Rather, through him and in him, the Holy One of God, God’s holiness has come. His transferable holiness destroys the impurity so that it no longer has the capacity to render others impure (23). Those he touches he restores to communion with God. This (20) The gospels do not tell whether Jesus underwent the prescribed rites of purification after touching those people. We therefore cannot know whether or not these healings by touch involved a transgression of the law. In view of the complicated rites of purification the law prescribed for such cases and the long- term impurity one incurred by touching a corpse, as well as in view of the danger of death if one failed to undergo the appropriate rites (Num 19,13.20), Jesus’ behaviour is at least remarkable (cf. J.D.G. DUNN, “Jesus and Purity. An Ongoing Debate”, NTS 48 [2002], 465). (21) In the Old Testament, only impurity and holiness are “active” in the sense that they can expand their realms; purity and profanity are passive. They do not expand. (22) Cf. J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York 1991) 443-456. (23) Cf. K. BERGER, “Von der notwendigen Unterscheidung das Heilige und das Unheilige”, Heilige(s) für Protestanten (ed. R. EHMANN) (Herrenalber Forum 7; Karlsruhe 1993) 48-49.